Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by The Overlord, Dec 28, 2012.
They were looking for Picard's family photo album.
The whole economy as presented in TNG was utterly absurd because he presupposes that scarcity of about everything has disappeared.
However we know that scarcity according to dialog in TNG hasn't disappeared. For example, the Pircard family owns a winery. So according to TNG dogma no one on planet earth [save the Picard family] wold ever cherish/desire owning that property and wouldn't be willing to trade for it.
The absnece of a barter system on earth or generally in the federation save trading with the Ferengi using latrium further convludes and makes the arguemnt absurd. Because further according to TNG Trek dogma the Alpha quadrant has de-evolved into trading only with precious substances something we've abandoned here on earth over 100 years ago.
The ulatimate form of scarcity other than land of course are people's skills. And to assume that human beings despite 10,000 years of human history would all of a sudden abandon our selfishness and desire to covet what we don't have it the final and ultimate absurdity in TNG - unless you count Denna Troi's contention that also in the 24th century that sorrow/sadness would go away as well.
Those of us who grew up on TOS and wanted to paint ourselves a picture of the TOS universe had to rationalize many of the inconsistencies presented by what we saw on TV, and fill in many of the holes/conflicts in continuity.
It was actually fun to do, and I (for one) thought of it as a game -- i.e., "How do I reconcile THAT seemingly inconsistent fact with what was said two episodes ago". Reconciling what was presented on TV with perceived canon was a sort of brain-teaser game. Some people carried this to extreme levels by making starship plans, maps of the galaxy, and tables organization of the Federation based on nothing more than a few hints -- and a lot of conjecture ("Fanon"). That was fine, too.
The point is that TOS continuity, based strictly on what was presented on TV, was terribly inconsistent and incomplete. It wasn't until the fans started filling in the holes and rationalizing those inconsistencies with their own fanon that today's accepted version of TOS canon emerged.
TNG, on the other hand, was a lot more stringent and deliberate with its continuity (although it had its own inconsistencies). The canon of TNG was much easier to gather by simply watching the TV shows. There wasn't a lot of rationalizing and filling in of holes necessary. I'm not saying that is better or worse; I'm just pointing this out.
Heck, some of us have built careers on that!
*Don't* they use the barter system on Earth? Or some kind of volunteer system? Sisko's dads staff has to come from somewhere. In TNG, civilans trade work to see the galaxy.
What Picard, et al, don't tell the viewer is that it was the holodeck and 'recreational programs' that really wiped out the worst that man has to offer.
(We'll just pretend that Barclay's debut ep, and the artificial social shame, doesn't exist)
Given how impressed I am by most of your post and a previous one I commented on, the above seems kind of like it was written by someone else. Sure, Greg's river metaphor may be poetic, but not plusible I believe, as it seems to me it overlooks the second law of thermodynamics (a point you yourself more or less made I thought). Nor do I think it would just mask a problem, I think it would be a problem. One sufficient to curtail popcorn munching in it's own right!
The supernova business already gave a false impression of that phenomena of course, but these are not faults that can be excused because it's Sci-fi. Not without some explanation in-movie as to why "normal science" doesn't apply.
That would be my preference.
By the way, I found the comment about the "timestream's way of mending itself". It was a line said by Old Spock to Kirk which they cut from the film (mentioned in the commentary starting at 1:17:35 or so).
I do it for fun; you do it for profit.
It's practically the same, but I don't make any money doing it .
I bet James Dixon had an embolism when ST'09 came out.
It was basically forgotten.
Except The Inner Light had nothing really to do with the world of Star Trek after Picard went comatose. Even in that fantasy recreation, he gave up trying to get back to Star Fleet after a few years and basically forgot all about the UFP, StarFleet, the Enterprise, etc.
(I also have an issue with the fact that Picard lived DECADES of a life in that recreation; yet, afterwards, somehow, he's supposed to have retained that entire memory of the alien culture and his life there; yet obviously had no problems getting right back to his current Star Fleet functionality EVEN THOUGH for him, a lifetime had passed. After something like that, were Star Fleet realistically portrayed he probably should/would have been relieved of Command for some months or years while they checked his out for any mental/physical damage/effects.)
The episode was more Twilight Zone or Outer Limits than something suited for Star Trek. I've never understood what people see in the episode myself.
Well, it's more in line with my own personal taste of what constitutes great science-fiction than the direction Abrams is taking things with Into Darkness.
They've even found a way of getting the characters out of uniform. No doubt because the TOS uniforms are seen as too nerdy and they wanna aim for that wider audience . Honestly, it feels like this film is doing just about anything possible to distance itself from resembling Star Trek.
Which has, if I am to believe people in this thread, been entirely terrible since TNG because the following shows got low ratings. Even though TOS got cancelled because of it's shit ratings faster than ENT did. Even though TOS only became the popular phenomena it is because of the dedicated geek fanbase we're now supposed to pretend don't matter just to tow the studio line.
Yeah, apparently our opinions matter less than some popcorn guzzling casual that can maybe vaguely remember "Dr. Spock" dying in Wrath of Khan because there's less of us. Brilliant.
Roddenberry was more that happy to drop the TOS uniforms in TMP. OTOH, the Abrams team actually brought them back and are using them in the film. Not for every scene but they are there, just as they were in ST09. Showing a variety of uniforms and costumes isn't a bad thing. TOS had several variations and we saw the crew out of uniform from time to time. The movies did the same thing. You're trying way to hard to find things to complain about.
As I and others have said before, Star Trek is a lot of things and the previous film and this one has used several of those things. I can't speak for others in this thread, but I'm a fan of most of Star Trek. TOS and DS9 are my favorite TV incarnations, while TWOK, TVH and ST09 are my favorite films. People aren't saying Trek was terrible, just that the rating started sliding after TNG. That's a fact. It's not a reflection on what ever quality those incarnations of Star Trek may have, but of diminishing popularity.
TOS became popular because people liked it, not because of some geek minority. The movies also became popular because a wide variety of people went to see them, not just a geek minority. TNG became popular because a wide variety of people watched it. You need to understand this and acceptrd it. New Star Trek will only be produced if it is successful with a wide variety of people. So no, our opinions do not matter. And just because you like certain aspects of Star Trek ( real or imagined) it doesn't make you more intelligent, culturally superior or sophisticated than someone who has a different opinion or is a "casual".
Well said, especially considering the stated desire of the staff to distance themselves from the previous productions with regards to the title.
It's an absolutely absurd argument but it's par for the course for Abrams, Lindelof and Co.
Sorry, we hashed out the colon controversy months ago. Whats absurd, is taking everything that comes out of there mouths as deadly serious.
Sorry for feeling offended when the producers of the film see me as the type of person who should be looked down upon.
Which they have not done. They do not know you, nor have they mentioned "Kevin W." in interviews.
Obviously I wasn't talking about myself specifically. Don't be ridiculous.
He's right. One of the film's considered titles (and the one they're using in Russia) is Star Trek: Vengeance which sounds like just another Trek sequel. Star Trek Into Darkness sounds like they're doing something a little different.
Remember the poster for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which had "THE VOYAGE HOME" in huge letters with a tiny "star trek iv" underneath it, AND Kirk and Spock in civvies? Clearly they were ashamed of Star Trek as well!
Separate names with a comma.